' SYED MUHAMMAD KAZIM RAZA SHAMSI, J.---The petitioners Shahid Hussain and Shahzad Hussain through the instant criminal miscellaneous petition seek their release on bail in case F.I.R. No.70, dated 12-2-2012, registered under sections 302, 324, 148 and 149, P.P.C. With Police Station Satrah, District Sialkot.
2. As per crime report made on 12-2-2012 by Muhammad Javed on the same day at about 5-30 p.m. He along with his brother Muhammad lqbal and his son Muhammad Afzal were present at the sweetshop when Shahid Hussain, Zahid Hussain, Shahzad, Arshad, Imran, Amir and Sajjad Khan while armed with pistols emerged there. Shahid Hussain raised lalkara that a lesson be taught to the complainant party for insulting them and fired at lqbal, which hit on the right side of his chest whereafter Sajjad also fired at Iqbal which hit on his right hand. Iqbal fell on the ground, whereafter Shahzad fired at Afzal injured P.W., which hit on his right lumber-region, Imran's fire landed at the upper right side of the hip of Afzal and Sajjad's fire also caused injury at the same place. Afzal also fell on the ground and the accused decamped from the spot raising 'Lalkaras'. The motive for the occurrence was that Shahid etc. Were having suspicion that deceased Iqbal had abused them in their house due to the dispute of the land. Muhammad Iqbal succumbed to the injuries at the spot whereas Afzal injured P.W. Was taken to the hospital in precarious condition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners while touching the conduct of the complainant party has referred to various F.I.Rs. Registered at different Police Stations in respect of their misdeeds and attempted to show that the complainant party is not neat and clean and is involved in many criminal cases. It was pointed out by the learned counsel that after arrest of the petitioners the complainant party attacked their houses and took away all household articles in respect of which an F.I.R. Was registered at the Police Station. He further submitted that according to the Police investigations fires were made by Imran and Sajjad co-accused and the petitioners were present at the place of occurrence empty handed. Further argued that co-accused Zahid, Arshad and Amir were admitted to bail by this Court vide order dated 9-8-2012 passed in Criminal Miscellaneous No.9217-B of 2012, therefore, prayed for grant of bail to the petitioners on same premises, Learned counsel to support his submissions has placed reliance upon the cases of Ghulam Mujtaba Qadri v. The State and others (2012 SCM R 662), Ehsan Ullah v. The State (2012 SCM R 1137), Subeh Sadiq alias Saabo alias Kalu v. The State and others (2011 SCM R 1543), Haji Muhammad Nazir and others v. The State (2008 SCM R 807), Amir Ali and others v. The State (1984 _SCMR 521) and Malik Waheed alias Abdul Hameed v. The State and another (2011 SCM R 1945).
4. The petition has been opposed by the learned D.P.G., assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant, with the submission that the finding of the Police is not based upon sufficient material, therefore, the same is not binding upon the Court and that the petitioners were nominated in a promptly lodged F.I.R. With specific role of murder of Muhammad Iqbal and causing serious injuries to Afzal P.W., therefore, they are not entitled for the concession of bail. He further contended that the eye-witnesses of the case fully implicate the petitioners and their statements are in line with the medical evidence. It is further argued that the case of Zahid Hussain, Arshad and Amir co-accused is not at par with the case of the present petitioners, therefore, the same treatment cannot be afforded to the present petitioners. Learned counsel for the complainant has relied upon the cases bf Mudassar Altaf and another v. The State (2010 SCM R 1861) and Ehsan Akbar v. The State and 2 others (2007 SCM R 482).
5. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and examined the case-law cited at the bar. Learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon the cases, which have been examined and it is found that the same do not cover the facts of the instant case as such are of no help to him. It was observed by the Apex Court in the case of Haji Muhammad Nazir (Supra) that each criminal case has its own features and is required to be decided on its own merits independently. In view of this dictum of the Apex Court the facts of the case are being examined independently.
6. Similarly, the case of Ghulam Mujtaba Qadri (supra) pertains to offence of abetment in which the accused had not been attributed any role in causing the murder nor he is connected with the motive part as per prosecution story whereas in the instant case according to the record Shahid Hussain petitioner had given a fatal shot at the chest of the deceased Muhammad Iqbal and co- accused Shahzad inflicted firearm injury at the lumber-region of the injured.
7. In the case of Subeh Sadiq (supra) it was not alleged by the prosecution that the accused was armed with any weapon or caused any injury to the opponent thus the facts of this case are also not applicable to the case in hand.
8. In the case of Amir All and others (supra) the Apex Court observed that the findings of the Police regarding the absence of the accused of the case was based upon sufficient material but in the instant case there appears no material available on the record to subscribe the view of the Investigating Officer to the effect that the petitioners were present at the spot empty handed.
9. Similarly, the case of Malik Waheed (supra) had totally different facts as in that case no specific injury was attributed to the accused whereas in the instant case both the accused have been attributed injuries, one to the deceased and the other to the injured P.W.
10. The crux of the above discussion is that the case-law relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners are not applicable to the facts of the instant case and are distinguishable. On merits when the case has been examined it is found that there is overwhelming evidence available on the record in the form medical and of ocular account coupled with the fact that the motive is also attributed to the petitioners, fully connecting them with the murder of Muhammad Iqbal and causing injury to Muhammad Afzal P.W. Mere fact that the Police during investigation introduced different version of the case cannot nullify the evidence available on the record, which was collected in a very promptly lodged F.I.R. Ruling out the possibility of false implication and substitution. Even otherwise the observations of Investigating Officer are not based upon sufficient material cannot be believed and allowed to change complexion of case as held in the case of Mudassar Altaf (supra). In my view, it is not a case in which any concession of bail can be extended to the petitioners.
11. For the foregoing reasons, the petition having no merits is dismissed.